On June 30, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously reversed the State Court
of Appeals, and ordered a new election for Mayor and Borough Council in
Chesilhurst, because instructions for write-in voting had been so unclear.
Petition of Gray-Sadler, A-97-99.

At the November 1999 election, the incumbent Mayor and Councilmen of
Chesilhurst were unopposed on the ballot. However, a write-in slate had
campaigned vigorously. The official vote for Mayor was incumbent Arland
Poindexter 172; write-in candidate Kati Gray-Sandler, 154. Gray-Sandler and her
running mates sued. The trial forced an examination of the paper rolls in the
voting machine, which showed another 21 write-ins for Gray-Sandler which had not
been counted because they had been placed in the wrong location. Also, some
voters testified that they had desired to cast a write-in vote, but the
instructions were so inadequate, they were unable to do so.

The trial court had ordered a new election, but the State Court of Appeals
had reversed that. The Supreme Court has now reversed the State Court of
Appeals, and ordered a new election in September.

The Supreme Court found that the instructions for casting a write-in vote
were so murky, it was not surprising that many of the write-ins had been cast in
the wrong place. It said, "In all future elections throughout the state,
explicit instructions on how to cast a write-in vote must be provided with the
sample ballots... Similarly clear and informative instructions must be provided
at the polling place... As a general rule, any of the instructions contained
inside the voting machines should be displayed outside the voting machines so
that voters have an opportunity to read the instructions in advance and pose any
question they may have to the election officials."

The court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court: "A citizen's constitutional right to
vote for the candidate of his or her choice necessarily includes the corollary
right to have that vote counted."

The decision will be useful this fall against states such as Pennsylvania,
where the law says all write-ins must be counted and canvassed, yet where this
law is routinely disregarded. At the November 1996 election, Pennsylvania
elections officials did provide a state tally of write-ins for Ralph Nader, but
this year they say they won't repeat such a "favor" for any write-in
presidential candidates.

On July 20, Ralph Nader filed a federal lawsuit against the Illinois petition
deadline of June 26. Nader 2000 v Illinois State Board of
Elections, 00-cv-4401, n.d. The case was assigned to Judge William
Hibbler, a Clinton appointee.

On July 28, he filed a similar lawsuit against the South Dakota independent
candidate petition deadline of June 20. Nader 2000 v Hazeltine.
John Hagelin expects to join the case.

The Nader lawsuit against North Carolina's May petition deadline for new
parties had a hearing in federal court at 9:30 a.m. on July 31. A decision is
expected at any time.

The lawsuits are all based on Anderson v Celebrezze, a 1983 U.S.
Supreme Court decision which said that early petition deadlines for independent
and minor party presidential candidates are unconstitutional. Nader needed to
file these lawsuits because he didn't get enough signatures in those states by
the deadlines. He is continuing to collect signatures in those states. He may
file a similar lawsuit against Oklahoma, another state in which his petition
wasn't finished in time.

On July 24, U.S. District Court Judge Tim Leonard refused to force the
Oklahoma Election Board to let any registered voter vote in the Libertarian
Party primary. Beaver v Ward, civ-00-1071-L. The judge said that
state law, which lets a party decide for itself whether to let independent
voters into its primary, but which doesn't give it the right to invite members
of other parties into its primary, is probably valid.

Judge Leonard's order does not even mention the June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court
opinion California Democratic Party v Jones, which seemed to say
that parties have a First Amendment right to decide for themselves, who votes in
their primaries. The judge, a Bush appointee, said letting Republicans and
Democrats vote in the Libertarian Party primary would harm the major parties. He
also said that, since precinct officials for the upcoming August primary have
already been trained, there would be no good opportunity to teach them how to
handle something new.

The party wanted all voters to be able to vote in its primary, because it
felt that this would be a good way to get more voter support. The party will not
appeal the denial of an injunction, but will try again to persuade the Judge
that the law is unconstitutional.

On July 18, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago, introduced Concurrent
Resolution 373, which calls on the Commission on Presidential Debates to change
its criteria from 15% standing in the polls, to 5%. He is seeking co-sponsors.
Please ask your member of the U.S. House to sign on.

The London Times of June 29 reports that Prime Minister Tony
Blair will soon recommend Instant Runoff Voting for Parliamentary elections.
However, he will not support proportional representation. Instant Runoff Voting
lets voters put a "one" next to a favorite candidate, and a "two" next to the
voter's next-favored candidate. If the favored candidate is eliminated in the
first round of counting, the voter's ballot is then transferred to the
second-place choice.

On July 21, the Civil Action Party of Puerto Rico asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to hear its ballot access appeal. Partido Accion Civil v
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, no. 00-124. Puerto Rico requires new parties
to submit a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast. Each signature must be
notarized. Only attorneys can do the notarization work, and they cannot be paid
more than $1 per signature. Since this law has been in effect, only one party
has ever complied with the requirement. Yet the Puerto Rico Supreme Court upheld
it, earlier this year. The party is seeking other organizations to file
amici briefs on its behalf.

On July 21, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that independent voters may sign
petitions to put candidates on primary ballots. Ahearn v Kennedy,
cv-00-12165. As a result, a Democrat was restored to the September 2000
Democratic primary for Corporation Commissioner.

The election code is internally contradictory. One law says anyone who is
entitled to vote in a primary is entitled to sign a petition for a candidate in
that party's primary. Another law says only party members may sign. The Court
said since the law is contradicts itself, the conflict would be resolved in
favor of voter choice. The Democratic Party expressed no opinion or preference
(a new Arizona law, which hadn't yet gone into effect, says that any registered
voter may sign any primary petition; this lawsuit only dealt with the old law).

On June 30, an Oregon State Court Judge ruled that if the state is going to
transfer voters into an "inactive" file, and then refuse to count their
signatures on initiative petitions, then at least it must notify all such voters
that they can no longer sign petitions. In the meantime, their signatures do
count on petitions. McIntire v Bradbury, A6-6252, Multnomah Co.
Circuit Court.

Oregon puts voters into an inactive file if they appear to have moved and
have not re-registered at the new address. The 1993 federal "Motor Voter" law
forbids this, but the Court ruled that the "Motor Voter" law only affects
federal elections, so it is no help for initiatives. Oregon activists hope that
the state, faced with the bother of sending notices to each person in the
inactive file (telling them that they can no longer sign initiative petitions),
may change its policy and let "inactive" voters sign all petitions.

On July 20, the Democratic Party of Washington state filed a federal lawsuit
to escape that state's "blanket" primary. The next day, the case was settled
when both major parties and the Secretary of State signed a stipulation, ending
the blanket primary after January, 2001. The major parties are the only parties
entitled to choose their nominees by primary (other parties nominate by
convention). Washington Democratic Party v Munro, 00-5419-FDB.

The parties agreed to keep the blanket primary for this year. The case
remains open, and if the legislature doesn't pass a law next year for a
different kind of primary, the court, state elections officials, and the major
parties, will design a closed primary.

The case was settled quickly because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
June, Calif. Democratic Party v Jones. It said that parties cannot
be forced to use blanket primaries. The only remaining major party that likes
blanket primaries is the Alaska Democratic Party.

Texas currently provides that a party which is not qualified statewide, may
nevertheless qualify in a single county, and run candidates for county office.
However, the state won't let a party which is not qualified statewide, get on
the ballot in just a single U.S. House seat, or in a single legislative race.

Last September, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks upheld that policy.
However, on June 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals told him to re-think his
decision. The 5th circuit said Judge Sparks had concluded that the state had a
compelling reason for its policy, but that he didn't say what that compelling
reason is. Therefore, he must re-write his decision.

On July 25, Pat Buchanan filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington,
D.C., against the FEC, to force it to follow its own regulations which forbid
corporate donations to federal candidates. The lawsuit argues that the
Commission on Presidential Debates is not non-partisan, and therefore corporate
contributions to it are illegal. Buchanan v FEC, 1:cv-00-1775. The
case was assigned to Judge Ellen Huvelle, a Clinton appointee who also has
Hagelin's case.

There are now four lawsuits pending in federal courts on the presidential
debates issue: this one; one filed in the same court in 1996 by John Hagelin;
one filed in New York by The New York Independence Party and the Constitution
Party; and one filed in Boston by Ralph Nader.

Georgia will hold a special election to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat on
November 7, 2000. The election will be non-partisan, since all special elections
in Georgia are non-partisan. Anyone can get on the ballot by either paying
$4,101, or filing 9,528 signatures. The Secretary of State hasn't announced the
petitioning period yet. If the period is too short, the state may be forced to
reduce the number of signatures, under a 1982 precedent of the Eleventh Circuit
called Citizens Party v Poythress.

On July 18, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that petitions are not
invalid, just because they were photocopied so that the reverse side is upside
down, relative to the front side. Robinson v State Ballot Law
Commission, no. 8344. Last year the same court had ruled that stray
graffiti and doodles on a petition sheet make the sheet invalid, so this
decision is an improvement from last year's draconian rule. The new theory is
that alterations are only fatal, if the effect of the alteration is to change
the information that a potential signer would see, while he or she is deciding
whether to sign the petition.

As a result of the ruling, Jack Robinson was restored to the Republican
primary ballot for U.S. Senate.

The July 1
B.A.N. reported that Justice John Stevens said in Calif.
Democratic Party v Jones that the California blanket primary is void for
federal elections, because it was adopted by an initiative, instead of by the
legislature. Article I of the Constitution gives "state legislatures" the power
to write election laws for federal office. Stevens read that to mean that the
voters (acting via the initiative process) can't write election laws for federal
office. He said this is a tentative conclusion, since he hadn't had a chance to
fully research it.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court already settled this issue, back in 1916.
Ohio ex rel Davis v Hildebrant said that the reference to "state
legislatures" in Article I refers to all the legislative powers of a state: it
includes not only acts of the legislature, but also laws passed by initiative.
The 1916 case was about whether an initiative, changing Ohio's U.S. House
district boundaries, was constitutional. The Court upheld that initiative.

2. Alaska: on July 13, a supporter of Pat Buchanan filed a lawsuit in
state court, alleging that the Reform Party's private mail-in presidential
primary violates state law. Lamb v Hagelin, 3-AN-00-8649.

3. Arizona: on July 26, the Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. (the
Tucson faction) filed a lawsuit to force all the counties to include the office
of "precinct committeeman" on the party's September primary ballot. A previous
court ruling said that a qualified party must elect these officers, yet some
counties of the state won't print that office on the Libertarian primary ballot.
Konikov v Santa Cruz Co. Bd. of Supervisors, Santa Cruz Co.
Superior Court.

4. California: three Republican legislative candidates who lost the
March primary, but who would have won if that primary had been closed, have
filed a federal lawsuit to demand that they be declared the nominees.
Lorinzce v Jones, 00-cv-1520, e.d. The case went to Judge David
Levi, who had upheld the blanket primary in 1997. The hearing is August 4.

5. California (2): the state has asked for a rehearing in
Schaefer v Townsend, the 9th circuit case over whether candidates
for Congress must be registered voters.

6. Colorado: initiative supporters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to hear their appeal against a Colorado law which requires all initiatives to
deal only with a single subject. The law, which is ambiguous, has been applied
extremely restrictively in recent years. Campbell v Davidson,
99-2015.

7. Louisiana: on July 31, an independent candidate for the U.S. House
filed a federal lawsuit against the law which prevents her from having any label
next to her name on the ballot; not even the word "independent" is permitted.
Rosenthal v McKeithen.

8. Michigan: on July 25, a lawsuit was filed to overturn a campaign
finance law which requires candidates for state office to sign under penalty of
perjury that they have filed all required campaign finance reports. The party
argues that the law criminalizes potential inadvertent mistakes. Michigan
Libertarian Party v Secretary of State, 00-92155-AW, Ingham Co. Circuit
Court.

9. Pennsylvania: on July 24, the Green Party filed a federal lawsuit
against mandatory filing fees. Back in 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court said there
must be an alternative to filing fees, at least for paupers, but Pennsylvania
has no such alternative. Filing fees range up to $200. Belitskus v
Pizzingrilli, 3:cv-00-1300.

10. South Dakota: there will be a hearing August 8 in
Libertarian Party of S.D. v Hazeltine, over the law that requires a
statewide candidate of a new party to submit 250 signatures of party members, to
get on that party's primary ballot.

11. Virginia: on July 17, a federal judge upheld a law which requires
that statewide petitions contain 400 signatures from each congressional
district. Wood v Quinn, 3:00cv335.

1. California: SB 28 says that any party may decide for itself,
whether to let independent voters vote in its primary. It has passed the Senate
and is pending in the Assembly Elections Committee. Ever since 1986, parties
have had this right, but it will be more orderly to have it in the law.

2. California (2): Governor Gray Davis signed SB 917 on July 21. It
repeals a law that the names and wages paid to petition circulators must be
reported publicly.

3. South Carolina: HB3786 was amended to provide that qualified
parties have until August 30 to certify the names of their presidential and
vice-presidential candidates. The earlier version of the bill had set August 15,
but then it was realized that the Democratic Party would be unable to comply,
since its convention ends on August 16.

According to the BBC World Service, on July 25, the U.S. State Department
condemned Azerbaijan because its election law bans parties from the ballot if
they did not register at least six months before an election. Philip Reeker was
the U.S. State Department spokesman who voiced the complaint.

California bans parties from the ballot unless they qualify 13 months before
any general election, and Ohio bans them unless they qualify 12 months before an
election.

At the Maine primary election on June 13, Green candidate David Palmer was
unopposed for his party's nomination for State Representative, 37th district. He
had already qualified for public campaign funds of $3,200, to be spent in the
general election.

Unfortunately, he didn't bother to vote on primary day. No one else voted for
him either, even though his name was on the ballot. The Secretary of State then
ruled that he was not nominated at the primary. His name will not appear on the
November ballot, and he must return the campaign funds.

Sociology professor Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim of the American University in Cairo,
who holds dual Egyptian--U.S. citizenship, has been imprisoned in Egypt since
June 30. He specializes in the study of political behavior, and he has been
outspoken against his country's suppression of free elections. His colleagues
from many countries are asking for letters of support for him. The Egyptian
Ambassador to the U.S. is Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, Embassy of Egypt, 3521
International Court, NW, Washington DC 20008. Professor Ibrahim is accused of
receiving $220,000 from the European Commission to produce a documentary about
Egypt's election process, which will "harm Egypt's reputation".

In the United States, parties nominate presidential candidates at national
conventions. However, the choice of any party's national convention for
president is not legally binding. Due to Constitutional procedures for electing
a president, and the tradition that all ballot access laws (even for federal
office) are written by state governments, the state parties always have the
power to determine which presidential candidate to list in their own state.
Sometimes, the state parties refuse to abide by the results of the national
convention.

The Democratic Party has suffered from this form of disunity, in the
presidential elections of 1948, 1960, 1964 and 1968. In 1948 the Democratic
Parties of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and South Carolina refused to list
Harry Truman on the November ballot. Instead, they listed Strom Thurmond as the
Democratic nominee for president. Similar incidents occurred in the 1960's in
Alabama and Mississippi. The Republican Party suffered from it in 1912, when the
Republican Parties of California and South Dakota listed Theodore Roosevelt,
even though the national convention had chosen William Howard Taft. The
Socialist Party suffered in 1940 in Connecticut, and the Prohibition Party
suffered in 1928 in California, from similar incidents.

This year, the Reform Parties of New York and Connecticut are hinting that
they will not place Pat Buchanan on their November ballots, even if Buchanan
becomes the national Reform nominee. Similarly, the Arizona Libertarian Party
(the Phoenix faction, which is recognized as the legitimate party by the state)
may refuse to list Harry Browne on the Arizona November ballot.

Supporters of Buchanan in Connecticut and New York, and supporters of Browne
in Arizona, recently launched independent petition campaigns to nominate them in
those states, just in case the ballot-qualified parties do indeed refuse to list
the national nominees.

The Arizona Browne supporters not only must gather 9,598 valid signatures on
an independent petition; they must then also win a lawsuit against Arizona's
June 14 deadline. The Connecticut and New York deadlines have not yet passed.

The Arizona Libertarian Party will probably decide whether to list Browne, or
someone else, or no one, by August 5. The Connecticut and New York Reformers may
not decide until mid-September.

The reasons for the enmity between the New York and Connecticut units of the
Reform Party, and Buchanan, have been reported in the news media. Connecticut
Reform Party officers always been loyal to Ross Perot, and many Perot supporters
have been opposed to Buchanan ever since May, when Buchanan made it clear that
his approach to many issues is different from Perot's. Lenora Fulani, who is
powerful in the New York party, broke with Buchanan on June 18.

The Arizona Libertarian Party has been unhappy with the national party
because the national party recognized the other Arizona faction ("Tucson
faction") in January. The national party had conducted a poll of national party
members who live in Arizona in November 1999, which was won by the Tucson
faction by 251-131.

The Phoenix faction criticizes the methodology of that poll, pointing out
that the national dues-paying membership was the wrong group to poll, since only
36% of the national dues-paying party members appear to be registered
Libertarians. The Libertarian Party has long used an odd form of dues-paying
membership, in which national membership and state membership are distinct, and
it is possible for someone to be a national member without being a state member,
and vice versa.

Members of both Arizona factions participated in the national convention in
Anaheim last month. Members of the Tucson faction were "the" Arizona delegates.
Many of the other faction were credentialed as delegates from other states which
are sympathetic, and which had vacancies in their delegations.

Every year, the ten states mentioned above let taxpayers send a contribution
to the political party of the taxpayer's choice. The chart above shows the
amounts donated to each political party named on tax forms. The Ohio form only
lets a taxpayer decide whether to contribute, but doesn't let him or her choose
a party; the money is divided equally among parties which polled 20% for
president or Governor at the last election. All the other states mentioned above
allow a free choice of party.

The parties in the "Other (1)" column are: Minnesota Independence Party
(Governor Ventura's party), the Rhode Island Cool Moose Party, and the
Independent American Party of Utah. The parties in the "Other (2)" column are:
Progressive Minnesota, Utah Independent Party.

This is a reproduction of the Reform Party presidential primary ballot. Last
month, such a ballot was mailed to everyone who asked for one; everyone who is a
registered member of the Reform Party; everyone who signed a ballot access
petition to put the Reform Party on the ballot; and everyone who signed an
independent candidate petition for Pat Buchanan or John Hagelin. The ballots are
due by August 9 and the results will be announced at the Reform Party national
convention in Long Beach, California, on August 11. Approximately 900,000
ballots were mailed.

The chart below shows the vote for president and vice-president at the
Libertarian Party national convention, Anaheim, California, June 30-July 3.
Harry Browne, for president, won on the first ballot. His opponents were Don
Gorman of New Hampshire, Jacob Hornberger of Virginia, Barry Hess of Arizona
(who polled 53), and Dave Hollis of California (who polled 8). There were 23
votes for "none of the above"; 5 for L. Neil Smith; and 9 scattering votes,
including one Virginia vote for George W. Bush. For vice-president, no one got a
majority on the first ballot. On the second, Art Olivier, former Mayor of
Bellflower, California, was nominated; his chief opponents were Steve Kubby
(also of California), and Ken Krawchuk of Pennsylvania. Kubby is well-known as a
cancer survivor who depends on medical marijuana, and who is on trial for
growing his own marijuana, even though a California initiative decriminalized
medical marijuana, prior to his arrest.

"Deadline" is procedure with latest deadline. * -- entry changed since
last issue. #candidate procedure allows partisan label. See story below for
multi-state parties not listed here. NOTE: Constitution Party is doing an
independent petition in Wyoming, and Natural Law is doing the same in Kansas,
since their party petition failed. See previous story for
explanation of "unclear" in the Libertarian & Reform columns.

On July 9, the Vermont Progressive Party nominated Ralph Nader for president
and Winona LaDuke for vice-president. The Vermont Progressive Party is a
qualified party in the state, whereas the Green Party is not qualified there.

The Patriot Party of South Carolina is expected to also nominate Nader, at
its state convention in Columbia on August 12. The party has applied to change
its name back to United Citizens Party, which was its original name when it was
formed in 1970. Between 1984 and 1994 it was called the New Alliance Party.

The three minor party presidential candidates who have applied for primary
season matching funds had received these amounts from the U.S. Treasury, as of
June 30: Pat Buchanan $3,852,250; John Hagelin $314,135; Ralph Nader $100,000.
Additional amounts to these candidates were announced on July 31, too late to
include in this issue. Two other candidates, Harry Browne and Howard Phillips,
raised enough money to qualify for primary season matching funds, but don't
believe in taking them.

The Mountain Party of West Virginia has gained a place on the ballot for its
candidate for Governor, Denise Giardina. She is a well-known author and is
expected to poll at least 10% of the vote; if she gets even 1%, the Mountain
Party will then be qualified automatically for 2002 and 2004. This is the first
time that West Virginia has ever had a party on the ballot which exists only in
that state. The Mountain Party is an ardent foe of "mountain-top removal" coal
mining.

The Natural Law Party will hold its national convention August 31 to
September 2, at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center in Arlington, Virginia. John
Hagelin is certain to be nominated for president. Since the basis for Hagelin's
primary season matching fund money is that he is seeking the Natural Law (and
also Reform) nomination, the late convention date maximizes the period during
which Hagelin is eligible for primary season funding.

On July 23, the Liberty Union Party, a qualified party in Vermont, voted to
nominate the Socialist Party ticket of David McReynolds for president and Mary
Cal Hollis for vp. The Liberty Union Party also supported the Socialist ticket
in 1980, 1988 and 1996. In 1992 it supported the New Alliance presidential
candidate.